Quantifying the economic impact of a digital self-care behavioral health platform on Missouri Medicaid expenditures

Figures & data

Figure 1. Consort flow for subject selection.

Table 1. Demographic break-down of self-care tool group versus control group.

	Self-care tool	Control
	Percentage/mean	Percentage/mean
Overall
Gender (female)	72%	58%**
Age	36	38*
Marital status
Married	7%	6%
Education
More than HS	13%	12%
Living arrangement
Independent	39%	37%
Depression ICD-10 diagnosis	56%	54%

*At p < .05 level.

**At p < .01 level.

Abbreviation. HS, High School.

Table 2. Difference in difference health care spend by setting.

	BH Self-Care Tool Group (n = 799)				Control Group (n = 715)					p value
	n*	Pre-Period Costs	Post-Period Costs	Cost Difference	n*	Pre-Period Costs	Post-Period Costs	Cost Difference	Difference in Difference
Inpatient	62	$263	$116	−$148	86	$296	$264	−$32	−$115	.17
Emergency Services	274	$805	$482	−$323	255	$857	$694	−$163	−$160	.08
Psychiatric Facility/Health Clinic	123	$179	$97	−$82	103	$147	$136	−$11	−$71	<.01
Psychotherapy	71	$98	$43	−$55	70	$118	$98	−$20	−$35	.05

*n for each row includes only members who had at least one claim in both pre- and post-periods in this particular care setting.

Table 3. Program ROI scenarios.

Scenario	ROI
Table 2 observed results Actual year 1 registrations (n = 4078)	695%
Table 2 results where p < .05 Actual year 1 registrations (n = 4078)	193%
Table 2 results where p < .1 Actual year 1 registrations (n = 4078)	484%
Table 2 results where p < .05 Reduced registrations (n = 3000)	142%
Table 2 results where p < .05 Increased registrations (n = 5000)	237%
Table 2 results where p < .05 Stretch target registrations (n = 8000)	379%